User talk:ToNeverFindTheMets

Deadpool 3 Ireland Release

Hello there. I wanted to explain why Ireland is not included in the infobox and lead while the UK is (which I explained in my edit summaries, as well): Per WP:FILMRELEASE, the infobox is too small to fit all the countries in it (as many tend to have the same-day release), as it states: "the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Once it premieres, that will supersede this instance, and it was made in the UK (so we include that), not Ireland, which is not as notable per these points. Thank you for your time and contributions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we then add United Kingdom as a co-Country of Origin? ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, and it should not have been added, hence why I just reverted it. This is an American production from American studios. The fact that it was filmed in the UK does not mean its country of origin is the UK. A lot of American films and shows shoot in the UK nowadays, especially at Pinewood Studios. And Kinberg being English doesn't mean this film is an English production either. This is WP:SYNTHESIS. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once the doubt surrounding TSG and Bona Fide comes to a stop, we will likely know more on technicalities such as these. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That, again, is an assumption. We don't even know if those companies will be credited, and even if they were, that wouldn't change this from an American/United States film to be a UK co-production film just because they helped finance it before production was almost done. That is not how this works. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the consensus was to hide those companies until technicalities are learned. We write stuff here as it is stated. That is how this works.

Besides, doubt will eventually be remedied surrounding these financers. They could be credited, they could not be credited. Has TSG been credited on these sorts of films before? Will it be "like iron man 3"? We will know in time. Assuming the world doesn't blow up in the time before now and then. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hello, I'm 98Tigerius. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Dune: Part Two seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 98 𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 14:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ToNeverFindTheMets, I'm the one who jotted down the first Dune: Part Two plot. I went to an advance screeing last night, "Fan First Premier", and I wrote down the plot right after. It's authentic. You can look up the showing. DuneEditor (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it as good as the critics say? Lol, sorry for being a bit of a stickler. I loved the first one myself, and it's about time a sequel fulfils a creative's vision the right way. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it’s absolutely amazing, 10/10! It’s exceeded my high expectations and it’s a huge expansion of the last film. Everything has been improved and the cinematography, the soundtrack, the story, everything is just *chef’s kiss* DuneEditor (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friday where I live simply cannot arrive fast enough! Glad to hear it is, well, in your words, "absolutely amazing"! Happy travels to you, good editor! ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello ToNeverFindTheMets! Your additions to BRZRKR: Poetry of Madness have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source. You must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. Read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Our policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. I removed the copyvio and flagged the older revisions for deletion, so it's fixed now, but try to keep this in mind as you edit. Good work otherwise and thanks for contributing! Thank you. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Keanu Reeves into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Keanu Reeves in the media has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Alright. I'll add the same shit back but word it differently. Thanks for your construction to this page. "Thanks". ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Dress (Taylor Swift song)

Hi there. Please note that when reviewing a good article nomination, you should follow the instructions. In this case, as raised at the GAN talk page, I don't see that an in-depth review was provided, or that you did a spotcheck of citations to ensure source-text integrity. You also did not close the review correctly, which happily allows you to easily go back and provide a more in-depth review. If you have any questions, please ping me. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration with the public post about your review at WT:GAN, but your comment was absolutely unacceptable. The rest of your behavior, including your sarcastic response to Diannaa above, and your incredibly uncivil commentary at User_talk:Chris_troutman#Vampire, isn't making you look any better. I have blocked you indefinitely. You are free to make an unblock request and it will be reviewed by another admin. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply sorry. Don't know what got into me. I'm just looking for a set of more understanding folks who don't make jabs at noobs. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you have to deal with this. I said something insanely wrong to Diannaa here and I posted something on their talkpage to try and amend it. Chris irked me because he had every opportunity to be gracious about my own noobish stupidity, but chose to be comically blunt about it. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, and beckon for your answer. Will this template attract admins automatically? Or am I like this until the odd chance that someone stumbles by? Wiki project doesn't deserve admins as efficient as you. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant warning

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no clue what this message is even referring to, but I think you've misunderstood my warning. Threatening physical harm against another person, even as a joke or in hyperbole, is absolutely unacceptable, and has gotten other editors sanctioned in the past. Do not ever make a comment like this again. Consider this your only warning; the next step if it happens again will have to be administrative intervention. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was too rude to some people. I'd like to plead for another chance.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ToNeverFindTheMets (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Request reason: I'd like to apologize properly ~ I was a bit rude to some people. Diana, on my talk page, though I posted on theirs something nicer, but still not good enough for a proper apology. I got pretty shitty with someone over putting me on blast on a public talk page over a good article review for a Taylor Swift song, and frankly, I tried unsaying some stuff before I was blocked by chaos. Even if others could've handled themselves better, that was never my concern. I should've been more thorough in my own kindness, and personally should have handled myself better. I hope to clear most of my other stuff on here given the grace of an admin, and start more anew. I felt accosted by a "Bite the Newcomers" joke, and frankly, should've logged off to begin with myself. I'm deeply sorry for wasting your time over me being a gullible moron and unkind to others by wiki standards, kind Admin. I hate to pitch this like Ebeneezer Scrooge trying to repent after being shown the ghosts of Christmas's time, but I'd really love a shot at giving these people the proper apologies, and other wikipedians in the future the proper treatment and conduct, they deserve. ~ Human After All ~ ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been evading your block (and getting getting into arguments with people through your new, illegitimate, account), which is not a good look when you are asking to be unblocked. If you want to contribute here, you will have to undergo something of an attitude adjustment before anyone is going to be willing to consider an unblock. The standard offer is available to you, but if you continue trying to edit through sockpuppet accounts, you risk being community banned per WP:3X, which will make it much more difficult for you to get unblocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Public image and cultural impact of Keanu Reeves moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Public image and cultural impact of Keanu Reeves. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a prim editor, going by a skim of your page, and I laud that, but you don't seem to really believe that a man with an overwhelmingly positive public opinion, who has influenced popular culture, and is honestly a guy who should be the model for humanity in general, can actually exist. But I'm not writing that here. I'm writing about the media notability and impact Reeves has had in popular culture, his profession, and general media, similar to those impacts of Taylor Swift.

Draft:Public image and cultural impact of Keanu Reeves was a page that stipulated that it was documenting the innumerable instances in the media when Reeves was subject to virality, attention, and praise, rather than just lauding Reeves directly. If you are able to find any reliable source(s) that can contradict this, I welcome the inclusion of it on the draft. Even if I feel confident that no such opinions (that are also notable) exist, if anyone were to find any, it may very well be you. Furthermore, the page is certainly not lacking in reliable citations, so I would love if you would remove that reason from your drafting reason list. The masses of sources on this topic prove notability sevenfold.

It's obvious that Reeves's impact in cinema and on the internet deserve notice, and have been noticed by a wide enough and meritable sum, and that notice should be represented on these pages. I implore you, please believe. I know it sounds like a Christmas movie for children, but it's all true. Keanu Reeves needs not be undersold.

If I ever get unbanned from this platform, I will challenge your edits and actions concerning Reeves.

Advertising

I also do not understand this. The article is not pitching Reeves as "buy the kindest man who ever lived now for $49.95!", or otherwise forming any independent opinions that haven't been expressed by reliable sources, yet you claim this is "advertisement". What is trying to be sold here? What is being pitched? I'd appreciate your input here, in hopes it would serve as an explanation of your reasoning behind your edits. I only see representation of media opinions, events, and general public opinion as has been reported in the media ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important."

- Wikipedia:Independent sources

It is not up to you or me which topics are important, but rather other sources.

ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, in the future, please ping me if you want my attention (see Help:Notifications if you don't know how). The only paragraph in the current draft which is at all encyclopedic is the first of the "In the media" section, which can easily be incorporated in to the main article per WP:NOPAGE. The rest of the article consists entirely of violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP. Remember the following maxim, which is central to Wikipedia (WP:NOTEVERYTHING): "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Filling an article with WP:INDISCRIMINATE incidents involving Reeves is completely against this principle, and as it stands, I do not believe the article would survive WP:AFD. I hope you understand this reasoning; if you do not, and you move the page back to article-space upon getting unblocked, please do the courtesy of pinging me. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, will ping you if/when. If Taylor Swift can get an entire section of a dedicated article centred entirely around her tweeting a rebuke of a cheap joke by Ginny & Georgia about how she is "promiscuous with men" garnering media attention, the article I created can survive too. I will cite her article in reflection of Reeves's, and if mine can't survive, I will pursue the same judgement of hers. I believe I remember a talk page discussion where an editor opined that the article sounded like a swiftie fan page, and the consensus was exactly what I am writing to you now: "This article is not representative of her being influential, but is a representation of her media attention, the massive scope of it being the talking point". Again, if I am returned to the article space, I will incite the rules of T-Swift, and discussion in the article's talk page can ensue between us and other parties.

I do agree with you that the upcoming projects section on Reeves's main page needs to be condensed.
I also think better representation of Reeves's impacts on his action films needs better explication.
"Known for his performances in diverse genres, Reeves is famed for his roles in action films" - I think that sounds good in the opening.

Have a good one. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dragon Fish, C418, 2018.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Dragon Fish, C418, 2018.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Unreleased third Minecraft album for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unreleased third Minecraft album is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreleased third Minecraft album until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Untitled third C418 Minecraft album

Hello, ToNeverFindTheMets. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Untitled third C418 Minecraft album, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Untitled third C418 Minecraft album

Hello, ToNeverFindTheMets. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Untitled third C418 Minecraft album".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Public image and cultural impact of Keanu Reeves

Hello, ToNeverFindTheMets. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Public image and cultural impact of Keanu Reeves, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]